xpostml10Google's WebP
I’m working on a project which generates images in multiples sizes, and also converts to WEBP and AVIF.
The difference in file size is significant. It might not matter to you, but it matters to a lot of people.
Here’s an example (the filename is the width):
Also, using the <picture></picture> element, if the users’ browsers don’t support (or block) AVIF/WEBP, the original format is used. No harm in using them.
(I know this is a meme post, but some people are taking it seriously)
Is the quality the same? If so how do you know? I mean it’s better, I’m just curious.
Tldr: as we deal with a problem long enough we find more effective ways of dealing with it
Has some info on what it does
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_XL
Technically details might be more what you are looking for
jpegxl.info/resources/jpeg-xl-test-page
And a test page, if you don’t see jxl images then you should look at updating your browser
So you have no hard proof (no critic here, I’m just curious)? Not that it’s better but that your test images has the same quality.
For the rest, thank you for the links and the time but that only explains how the compression works.
If you want to know you could do fourier transform and see which kind of signals are cut out in one for example.
Quality improvements are that you can upload/download it without getting artifacts/pixel bleeding. JXL’s algorithm ensures that it’s a 1 to 1 transfer
But if I draw a stick person 512x512, there isn’t an image format that will make it anymore than it is. That’s why we look at compression
You mean there are no longer the 8x8 jpeg “boxes”?
Yes, other formats have less noticeable deterioration but Jxl fully fixes the issue
There are no browsers with jxl support and won’t be for many years to come.
Again - no browsers support jxl. Firefox “support” is only basic rendering of a few basic features. It’s not just browsers, there is literally no software which fully supports jxl. And won’t be for a long time.